Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-10-25
Precedents.

this morning brief review OF previous
decisions of that court which seem to
bear upon those cases
The case OF osborne as. Bank Of
United States, 9 Wheat 73S, was de-
cided more than sixty years ago. Since
then the Supreme Court has had fire.
queNt occasions in deciding other cases
to determine the extent to which that
case was to be regarded as authori-
tative. II may not be very easy to
reconcile all of these cases. But in
Cunningham rs. Macon and Bruins
,cick Railroad Company, 100 United
States, 446, Justice MILLER, in deliver
ing the opinion of the Court, found it
necessary to review all these cases, and
analyze them, and as the result OF that
review 10 define with reasonable pre-
"cision the limit of the power of the
"courts in cases affecting the rights
"of the State or Federal governments in
"suits to which they are not voluntary
"parties." This opinion was rendered
at the October term of 1888, when all
the Judges of the court were sitting,
and was concurred in by seven out Of
nine, Judges FIELD and HARLAN being
the two dissentients. Six out of the
seven judges in the majority and the
two dissenting judges now constitute
the full court. This decision has been
ever since recognized by the court as
binding authority.
In the Virginia coupon cases Judge
MATTHEWS, in his opinion in Poinderter
as. GrccnhOW, III URHcd States 2S7,
cited I as such and distinguished his
then decision from it, and as late as the
October term of 1885, in Hagood rs.
Southern, III United States 10, it was
again cited as authoritative.
The rule then laid down in Cunning
ham as. RalrOad must be the mea-
sure of the authority of the United
States Circuit Court to award the in
iupctions for disobedience to which the
Acknowledgement and Messrs. ScOTT
and McCABE have been fined and i'm
prisoned.
II, under that rule, the court had no
authority to entertain the suits, accord
ing to Er-parte Fisk, 1l3 Uaitcd States
rs. the order awarding the iujunc-
lions was void, and the order punish
ing the Virginia officers for contempt
was equally void, and upon the hearing
of the habcas corpus the Supreme
Court must under its well-settled prac-
tice annul the orders and discharge the
officers.
The count in Cunningham rs. Rail
road recognized three classes of de
PENDANTS in suits in equity, Formal
Parties 2, Proper Parties ; and B, In-
dispepsable Parties-and the rule laid
down was that where the State was an
indispensable party and did not volun-
tarily make herself party, the court
could not entertain the suit. The def
milton of indispensable parties was
adopted by the court from the opinion
of Judge CURTIS, speaking for the
court, in Shields as. BarrOU, II Hon.,
139.
The definition was illustrated by the
Judgment in CUNNINGHAM's case tina
the State of Georgia was an indispensa
BILE party, and by the approval of the
action of the court in the previous case
of Barney rs. Baltimore, 6 Wei. $50
Shields rs. BarrOV, II HO10. 100, anC
Russell rs. Clarke's En-, Z Crdnch. 80
Whether the State of Virginia was o
was not an indispensable party in thes'
Injunction suits these must be tried b.
that definition in the light OF these IL
Illustrations. The definition is: Per
sons who not only have an interest Il
the controversy, but an interest of sue
nature that a final decree cannot b
made without affecting that interest
leaving the controversy in such a cor
dition that its final disposition may b
wholly inconsistent with equity an
GOOD conscience. "-l09 United State
437 II Ho,c., 1879.
Now, what is an injunction to forbi
the institution or prosecution OF
snit al law? 1t is the transfer from
legal 20 an equitable forum OF IL
controversy of right between the pa
ties 10 the suit at law. II cannot
anything less than this, though it ms
be much more in bringing before Il
court other parties. and other CONT
yersies OF right. But if the plaintiff
the suit at law has any personal intere
in the determination Of the controveri
between himself and the defendant |
prosecutes at law he must have the Iii
interest in the final decree Of the Cou
Of Equity, and under any reasonab
Interpretation of the definition quote
above from Cunningham as. RdiiroC
must DO an indispensable party to h
suit in equity.
This very question has been detC
mined by the Supreme Court.
United States rs. Lee, 106 Z. S. Is
the court asserted its jurisdicti'
against officers of the United States
charge Of the Arlington property a.
gave Judgment for General LEE. B
in giving that judgment it express
recognized the fact that the
cision did not-and ii could not in t
absence OF the United States as
conclude the United States, b
that notwithstanding tho judgme
the Government was at liberty 10 svl
itself Of all the remedies which the ID
allows 10 every person natural or q
tifcial for the vindication and sssertiC
OF its rights" 100 u. s.. 222.
In tbio oy,,p;on Jud0ea Efptp M